Subud Should Not Promote Anyone’s Talks
By Merin Nielsen
The Problem:
Subud appears to promote the spiritual
doctrines that are included here and there throughout the talks of Pak Subuh
and Ibu Rahayu. To outsiders, this suggests that Subud members all embrace a
certain spiritual teaching. Although this is not true, the general impression
is liable to put off many people from trying out the latihan.
The Solution:
SPI should change its name so that
‘Subud’ is no longer within the company name. The Subud Association should
cease to officially sponsor or host SPI at congresses. Also, every publication
or website with ‘Subud’ in its name should stop publishing anyone’s ideas in a
supposedly doctrinal context to the point of advocating them. This policy
should apply equally to the words of Pak Subuh and Ibu Rahayu.
The Details:
The name ‘Subud’ occurring in Subud
Publications International (SPI) seems to imply that the Subud Association is
officially connected with this company and hence with SPI’s policy of giving
prominence to Pak Subuh’s talks, outside of historical purposes. As these talks
contain many statements about spiritual reality that are readily seen as
doctrinal, the blurred distinction between SPI and the Subud Association gives
an impression that Subud officially promotes the particular spiritual view of
Pak Subuh. It strongly suggests, by default, that all Subud members likewise
support or accept his perspective, whereas on inspection this is clearly not
true. Moreover, officially promoting any spiritual doctrine is not within the
mandate of the Subud Association, and is likely to go against the aim of making
the latihan more available. Therefore another concern is with Subud
newsletters, magazines and websites (whether or not for subscribers only) that
often tend to prominently publish the talks of Pak Subuh and Ibu Rahayu to the
point of inadvertent but exclusive long-term advocacy.
The World Subud Association should ask
SPI to drop ‘Subud’ from the company’s name. The company could continue to
publish and market Pak Subuh’s talks, but a suitable distinction between the
position of the company and the diverse viewpoints of Subud members would be
easier to recognise. If the company were to refuse, then suitable trademark
and/or copyright protection of ‘Subud’ and the content of Pak Subuh’s talks
should be applied to force the change. The World Subud Association should also
ask all private publishers of magazines and websites with ‘Subud’ in their
names to adopt the editorial policy mentioned above, again enforceable by legal
action. All national Subud organisations should similarly be requested to
follow this policy with regard to any newsletters, magazines or websites that
they publish. Individual Subud members may naturally continue to promote the
spiritual doctrines of whomever they choose, but this should not happen under
the name of Subud.
Subud is not in the business of
preaching. For the sake of historical legacy, there is no problem with
reasonable efforts to accurately translate and make available the talks and
writings of Subud’s founder. However, because Subud is not a religion and
claims to have no doctrine, it is inappropriate for Subud to be directly linked
with efforts to advocate or disseminate anyone’s doctrinal views — including
those of Pak Subuh and Ibu Rahayu — whether to the public at large or to
members of the Subud community. A strong stance of official neutrality toward
all spiritual doctrines is required in order to reduce unnecessary obstacles to
people trying out the latihan. In this way, Subud can be officially impartial
regarding spiritual views, whereas it currently presents an obvious bias toward
the spiritual perspective of its founder, which plainly alienates and deters
many people who might otherwise apply for membership.